When you’ve lost CNN…

I have said it before, I have a metric to definitively establish the absolute worst policy a politician can come up with.

It is my NRA/ACLU standard.

If both the NRA and ACLU come together to tell a politician that their idea is bad, it’s bad.  Full stop.  That’s as low as you can go.

I think I have to come up with a new standard for judging Left Wing politics.

When Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon come together and say a politician has gone too far Left, that’s the Left-most edge of the Overton window.

Just watch:



Wherein Harvard proved acceptance is worthless

Keep in mind that David Hogg is going to Harvard in the fall.

I guess his 1270 SAT score makes sense when you realize that reading comprehension is not his strong suit.

Well…  What does the article say?

Revealed: The U.S. military’s 36 code-named operations in Africa

Just after the attack, U.S. Africa Command said U.S. troops were providing “advice and assistance” to local counterparts. Later, it would become clear that those troops — the 11-man Operational Detachment-Alpha Team 3212 — were working out of the town of Oullam with a larger Nigerian force under the umbrella of Operation Juniper Shield, a wide-ranging counterterrorism effort in northwest Africa.

Until poor weather prevented it, that team was supposed to lend support to another group of American commandos who were trying to kill or capture Islamic State leader Doundoun Cheffou as part of Obsidian Nomad II.

Most of the these missions in Africa are like this.  Small special forces teams, rarely more than a few dozen of our elite military personnel, training and working with local forces to counter the many Islamist or ISIS inspired terrorist groups in Africa.

Like the Islamic group in Nigeria that is committing genocide against the local Christian population.  The genocide the media is ignoring.

The code-named operations cover a variety of different military missions, ranging from psychological operations to counterterrorism. Eight of the named activities, including Obsidian Nomad, are so-called 127e programs, named for the budgetary authority that allows U.S. special operations forces to use certain host-nation military units as surrogates in counterterrorism missions.

Used extensively across Africa, 127e programs can be run either by Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the secretive organization that controls the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, the Army’s Delta Force and other special mission units, or by “theater special operations forces.” These programs are “specifically designed for us to work with our host nation partners to develop small — anywhere between 80 and 120 personnel — counterterrorism forces that we’re partnered with,” said Bolduc. “They are specially selected partner-nation forces that go through extensive training, with the same equipment we have, to specifically go after counterterrorism targets, especially high-value targets.”

So the whole point of our being in Africa is to help stabilize local governments against terrorism.

Now we turn to Merriam-Webster to define imperialism.

Imperialism (noun)
im·​pe·​ri·​al·​ism | \ im-ˈpir-ē-ə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of imperialism
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

The original meaning of imperialism was a simple one: “imperial government,” that is, empire in the classical sense (such as existed in ancient Rome, China, and Greece).

Okay, now let Merriam-Webster to define empire.

Empire (noun)
em·​pire | \ ˈem-ˌpī(-ə)r \
Definition of empire (Entry 1 of 2)
1a(1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority
especially : one having an emperor as chief of state
(2) : the territory of such a political unit
b : something resembling a political empire
especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion  


It seems to me that neither the definition of imperialism or empire is a proper fit to the US sending our men and our resources to help bolster foreign governments’ defenses against terrorism.

Considering that ISIS is trying to create a Caliphate, the US is being anti-imperialistic against an Islamic Empire.

Since David Hogg neither read the Yahoo article nor understands the definition of imperialism, he is simply farting social justice jargon out of his ignorant asshole.

Normally I wouldn’t care what some stupid high school kid says, except that he has been hailed as the future of America, rewarded for his ignorance with a Harvard placement, and will upon graduation (you cannot fail out of Harvard, this is a fact) will be given a spot at some think tank or as an aid to some politician with all the financial benefits that come with it.

He has no incentive to be anything less than a jargon farting ignorant asshole, it’s gotten him a lot farther than being a “C” student with a mediocre SAT score ever has.

Kamala Harris for Supreme Leader Against Guns

In an effort to woo over the dozen people supporting Eric Swalwell, Kamala Harris has decided to go even more nuts on gun control.

She also discusses this in more detail on her website.

An estimated 1 in 5 gun purchases in America occur without a background check. These dangerous sales go through because the federal government does not consider most gun sellers that operate online, at gun shows, or out of their garage as being a “dealer” of firearms.

First of all, how will she know who has sold more than five guns in a year?  What traceability will she have to know who is breaking that law?  How will she make sure they do background checks?

Personally, I’d love for the ATF to go back to licensing “kitchen table dealers” and not requiring a business premises for an FFL.  With more and more internet sales of guns, let people get FFL’s and work out of their homes with nothing more than a computer and gun safe in their garage.  But I have the feeling that’s not what she is going for.

Revoke the licenses of gun manufacturers and dealers that break the law and take the most egregious offenders to court—regardless of whether they’re protected by the Protection of Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

Oh good, she wants to violate the PLCAA.  Don’t you love it when a Presidential Candidate runs on which laws they want to violate?

If Congress fails to repeal the PLCAA within her first 100 days, Harris will act herself. Under our plan, any willful and serious violation of federal, state, or local law will lead to a license being revoked. This includes conduct the PLCAA often protects, such as violating negligence laws by selling a gun to a straw purchaser, violating public nuisance laws by supplying dealers that consistently sell guns used in crimes, or violating unfair business practices statutes by marketing assault weapons to children in video games.

So she wants to repeal the PLCAA and destroy the gun industry with lawfare.

If a gun dealer is found breaking the law, guess what?  They lose their licenses.  It’s hard to prove that they knew they were breaking the law, but it’s not impossible.

Lastly, “ violating unfair business practices statutes by marketing assault weapons to children in video games” seems like an insane stretch.  So if Call of Duty features a guy carrying around a SCAR, does President Harris have the right to send the DOJ to shut down FN?

It is a federal crime for gun makers and dealers to willfully violate federal, state, or local law, and Harris will hold them accountable if they endanger our kids and communities. While the PLCAA may prevent victims of gun violence from taking bad actors to court, it can’t stop the federal government.

So when the Sandy Hook lawsuit fails, she wants the Federal Government to shut down Remington.  That’s tyrannical.

As someone who lives, eats, breaths, and sleeps ATF, trust me, the ATF has been doing a lot of the F.  Especially considering just how F’ed bump stock owners were by the ATF’s focus on F, and redefining what constitutes a machine gun.

I’ll get back to the Trump bump stock disaster in a moment.

I had to look up the thing about making fugitives no longer prohibited persons.  I just filled out a Form 4473 on Good Friday and question 11.d. “Are you a fugitive from justice?” is still there.

Kamala Harris is a Democrat running for office, so I can guarantee with 100% accuracy that she is lying.  Especially about guns.

In February 2017, the Trump Administration quietly narrowed the definition of “fugitive from justice” for purposes of determining when a person is prohibited from buying a gun. Now, a gun sale is not denied to a fugitive from justice unless it can be shown that individual fled a state “for the purpose” of avoiding charges. Proving a person’s state of mind is incredibly difficult, particularly given a background check must be completed within three days.

So the truth is a little more complicated and actually makes some sense.

Both Pennsylvania and United States law make it illegal for a fugitive from justice to purchase or possess a firearm. In order to enforce this prohibition, the FBI maintains a database of people who are ineligible to purchase a firearm that includes people who the FBI believes to have active arrest warrants. Until recently, the ATF and the FBI used different criteria in determining who met the definition of a fugitive from justice. The FBI has traditionally used a broader definition which included anyone with an active arrest warrant. The ATF, however, adopted a more limited reading of the phrase and defined a “fugitive from justice” as a person who both had a warrant for their arrest and traveled to a different state from the state in which the warrant was issued. Thus, the use of the ATF’s definition would result in fewer people being included in the Government’s database of prohibited persons.

I don’t think this is all that terrible if you look at questions 11.b., 11.c., and 11.d., together (paraphrasing):

Are you under indictment for a felony?  Have you been convicted of a felony?  Have you crossed state lines with an arrest warrant?

So felons or those under indictment for felonies are still prohibited persons.  So is buying a gun across state lines with an arrest warrant.

What this allows is for someone with a non-felony arrest warrant to buy a gun in the state they reside in.

When you consider that a bench warrant can be issued for unpaid parking tickets, making people who have active arrest warrants because they didn’t show up in court to pay the fine for their busted tail light prohibited persons is a little steep.

The impact has been disastrous: In the year following the change, the number of gun sales blocked by the “fugitive from justice” prohibitor dropped by roughly 65%. That’s thousands of gun sales being approved to individuals with outstanding arrest warrants.Harris will reverse the change and take executive action to prevent those with outstanding arrest warrants from purchasing guns.

Especially since Kamala Harris wants to give Nikolas Cruz, Nidal Hassan, and Dylan Roof the right to vote for her.

So what Harris said was mendacious bullshit.

Close the “boyfriend loophole” to prevent dating partners convicted of domestic violence from purchasing guns.

People convicted of domestic abuse shouldn’t be able to buy guns just because they’re not married to the person they abused. Harris will take executive action to close the loophole.

I’ve covered this a lot before.  It’s not just married, it’s also cohabitating or share a child with a person that makes in intimate partner.

This is opening the door to men becoming prohibited persons because of one bad date if the date accuses the man of making her feel threatened.

This is just part of the gun safety agenda Harris will pursue as president. In addition to enacting universal background checks, renewing the assault weapons ban, and repealing the PLCAA, Harris will fight to make gun trafficking a federal crime, ban high capacity magazines, and prohibit those convicted of a federal hate crime from buying guns.

Fantastic, becoming a prohibited person under President Harris will include the crime of continuously referring to Catlyn Jenner or Chelsea Manning as a “he” or refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

But back to her 100 days statement and bump stocks.

One would think that she would need Congress to pass an AWB.

Trump and his bump stock ban opened the door for that not to be the case.

Remember that the new standard for bump stocks is:

The final rule clarifies that the definition of “machinegun” in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

That’s crap because you pull the trigger every time, you just don’t move your finger.  The gun is moved against your finger, which is why the ATF let them go the first time.

What does this rule change mean for an AWB.

Imagine if the ATF decides that the new definition of “machinegun” in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) includes parts interchangeability with machine guns.

If you can put any machinegun part on your gun, viola, it’s a machine gun.

Your AR-15 is now a machinegun because you could drop an M4 bolt or barrel on it.  Hell, it probably has an M4 bolt and barrel (with a pined flash hider) on it already.

A simple, minor rule change can now ban a whole class of guns.

This is the danger door that has been opened and can be walked through for people like Harris, and is hard as hell to close.

The Democrats are not just running on taking your guns but destroying the entire gun industry through executive fiat too.




New Jersey to implement poll tax on gun rights

If there is one thing that racist Democrat elites hate, it is the idea of poor people, especially poor minorities enjoying equal rights.

Rights are something for the elite, not the dirt people who serve them.

This was always a principle of monarchies, which is one of the reasons why the Democrats want to make us more like Europe.  They want to codify their superiority into the law.

New Jersey is already one of the most gun unfriendly states in the union, but the Governor of New Jersey wants to make it even more unfriendly to poor people and minorities.

Why Having a Gun in New Jersey Could Soon Cost 20 Times as Much

Because New Jersey is run by Leftist Democrat assholes who hate guns and poor people who try to be self reliant.

The New York Times will take several pages to explain why that’s not so.

Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey wants to put the state at the forefront of a movement to raise fees on gun permits in order to expand efforts to tackle gun violence and reduce the flow of illegal firearms.

Which has NOTHING to do with legal gun permit owners.

Though New Jersey has strict gun control laws, its firearms fees have not changed since the mid-1960s, making it a bargain for gun owners. A firearm identification card costs $5, while a permit to own a firearm is $2. A permit to carry a gun costs $20.

Making people pay for a Constitutional right is wrong.  I had to pay $10 for a FOID in Illinois and I still think that was wrong.

New York City, which also has stringent gun laws, charges $340 to apply for a permit to own and carry a gun.

Because New York is tyrannical hellhole that is experience a declining population because of the high taxes, crumbling infrastructure, and streets filled with human shit, run by a mayor that wants to ban new skyscrapers and tax the old ones to death.  They should not be the model of how to do anything.

Mr. Murphy, a Democrat, has proposed fees that would be among the highest in the country. An identification card would cost $100, an owner’s permit would be $50 and a carry permit $400.

That’s right, $150 to just own a gun in your own home.

New Jersey has a $8.85 minimum wage, which will go to $15 in 2024.  So as of right now, it would take a working class person Almost 17 hours of pre-tax income for a permit.

That is more than two full days of pre-tax income to afford a Constitutional right.

That is a horseshit poll tax.

“There’s no war on responsible gun owners,” Mr. Murphy said in an interview. “We can support the efforts of the attorney general, state troopers, county and local law enforcement, to do the stuff we need to do: track crime, track gun violence, combat trafficking of illegal guns.

Bullshit.  How many permit holders are the ones engaged in violence and trafficking?  Almost none.  This is a war on legal gun owners.

“I was in Jersey City,” he said. “It’s at least $10 to get a dog license in Jersey City. It’s still $2 to get a permit to purchase a firearm in New Jersey.”

That $2 is $2 too much.

But gun owners’ groups say the governor is trying to use financial pressure to curtail their lawful rights.

Yes it is.

At least 12 states, including New York, Connecticut and Washington, have moved to increase fees and taxes on guns and ammunition since the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012, according to a study by Southern Illinois University.

Though higher fees might discourage some people from buying firearms, gun control advocates and researchers said they were not certain that higher fees alone would reduce violence.

“Most crime guns in the Northeast are thought to come from the ‘iron pipeline’ from the South, and then they’re sold on the street,” said Daniel L. Feldman, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, referring to guns that are bought in states with looser restrictions and then sold illegally in states with tighter ones.

So the increase in fees won’t stop the crime and we know it, but New Jersey will move ahead with it anyway.

Because it’s not about crime.  It’s about stopping those poor people, especially poor brown people from having gun rights.

But gun control groups do support the idea of raising the cost of owning a firearm to pay for programs that would make it harder to use guns to commit crime.

And how does charging law abiding people make it harder to commit crime?

“We think it’s a smart way to legislate,” said Jonas Oransky, the legal director at Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group founded by Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor.

“We support strong data-driven intervention programs,’’ he added, “and think that it makes sense to fund them by raising revenue from gun purchasers.”

And the above data says that this is shit.

A leading gun rights group in the state has threatened to sue Mr. Murphy if his proposal becomes law, and the state’s hunting community is also lobbying against the proposal.

“It’s going to affect gun shops tremendously,” said Lisa Caso, who owns Caso’s Gun-A-Rama in Jersey City. “It’s going to deter a lot of people from buying permits. In our business, you have people coming in who barely have money to buy the most modestly priced guns, which are around $300.”

For New Jersey Democrats, that’s a feature not a bug.

Ms. Caso said some of her customers have told her that people are stocking up on permits now, worried about the possibility of higher fees.

“I think what Murphy would want to happen,” she said, “is for every gun shop in the state of New Jersey to just close.”

That is 100% accurate.

It’s not about crime.  It’s about keeping the poor in their place, which means not self reliant and without equal rights.

If they can’t ban gun ownership, they will make it prohibitively expensive for “undesirables” to get the permits for the rights.

If this passes, I hope it gets changed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

I’d like to see permits to own struck down nationwide.

The evil of Progressive principles

I saw this last night and could not believe it.

And because Bernie said it, Kamala Harris (and soon the rest of the Democratic clown car) said it too.

You can tell just how extreme this postilion is when both Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon, very incredulously, ask Sander and Harris if they are sure that they want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be able to vote from prison.  Even CNN’s two most hackish hacks could tell this wasn’t going to go over well with Middle America.

Forget Tsarnaev for a second, here is the thoughts that came to my mind.

This same right would go to Nikolas Cruz and James Holmes.

Those mass shooters were the inspiration for gun control in Florida, Colorado, and other states.

So by the standards of Bernie and Harris (and soon the rest) a mass shooting is terrible enough that innocent, law abiding gun owners must be collectively punished with the revocation of their Constitutional rights, but the shooters themselves cannot be disenfranchised.

It really hammers home how much more they hate law abiding gun owners than Left leaning criminals.

Also, this paves the way for the Democrats to use violent, criminal thugs as political enforcers, as other Socialist dictators have done in the past.  Especially when combined with the Ban The Box Campaign to prohibit goverment and private employers from asking about criminal convictions on job applications.

Some radical Bernie Bro would no longer have any incentive not to go around smashing conservation skulls with bike locks.

So what if he goes to prison, he can still vote for Bernie from behind bars and Bernie will give him a job when he gets out.  So smash away to ensure a Bernie victory because a Bernie victory means committing a felony will have no long term repercussions.

The Republican with brain damage from a TBI will have to deal with that for the rest of his life, but that’s neither here nor there for Bernie.

Eric Swalwell is a coward, but we already knew that

Congressman Eric Swalwell is a coward.

He is the epitome of the internet tough guy who turns out to be a dickless coward when called out in real life.

Congressman Swalwell is going to make you turn in your assault rifles in some stupid buyback program.  If you don’t, he’s going to send his stooges to your house and arrest you.  If you put of a fight, he’ll nuke you.

What he won’t do is get on stage with Dana Loesch and debate her.

Here is a Twitter back-and-forth between Eric Swalwell and Dana Loesch the started because Eric Swalwell decided to channel AOC.

When a sitting member of Congress uses the “New X, who dis?” meme, you know that the point they are going to make is shallow and stupid.

Valid question.  I asked it before when I said Swalwell thought laws are magic.

Blwing up = two Tweets, because being a straight white man didn’t give him enough victim cred he had to Smollett* some Twitter abuse

*Smollett – verb, to fabricate a incident that makes the fabricator a victim for the purpose of sympathy and reward on social media.

That “I don’t aim down” is such horseshit, masquerading his cowardice as virtue.  Dana Loesch is an official NRA spokesperson.  Discussing policy and politics is her job.  Organizations of all types have spokespeople whose job it is to represent the organization’s positions publicly.  It is the antithesis of aiming down to debate the very person the organization taps to do the debating.

The like a true internet tough guy, he doubles down.

What fucking bullshit.

The President of an organization is chosen for his or her leadership skills.  That is different than debate skills, which is why spokespeople exist.

This is like saying “Adam Silver, Commissioner of the NBA is afraid to play me in one-on-one, and I won’t play LeBron James because that’s ‘aiming down.'”

Also, “unrestricted weaponry?” This guy is allergic to the truth.

Finally, Dana threw down the gauntlet.

We’ll he is.

That’s the simple answer.

He wants to make sure a debate never happens because his ideas are the gun grabbing equivalent of the Green New Deal, expensive, unpopular outside the extreme, and absolutely tyrannical.

This is internet tough guy bluster.

For real destruction you need Progressives

The Notre Dame fire only damaged the cathedral.  Fire damage is repairable, even to an ancient and historical building like Notre Dame.

More than one billion dollars has been raised to repair Notre Dame Cathedral.

It is one of the the most heavily documented buildings in the world.  There are actual 3-D Laser scans of every square inch of the building.

And keep in mind that construction of Notre Dame started in 1163 and ended in 1345.  The building is between 674 and 857 years old.

It has gone though the Napoleonic Wars, French Revolution, the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, and WWII.

French Radicals during the French Revolution engaged in iconoclasm, and did severe damage to the Notre Dame Cathedral.

The Cathedral had fallen into disrepair, as just another old building in Europe, until the international success of Victor Hugo’s novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, revitalized French pride in the Cathedral and it was restored as a French monument.

The point is, the fire alone damaged Notre Dame, but it’s fine.  That can be fixed.

To truly destroy a great monument to Western Civilization, you need to unleash the progressives.

From Reuters:

As Notre-Dame money rolls in, some eyebrows raised over rush of funds

Pledged donations from French billionaires, companies and ordinary citizens for the restoration of fire-ravaged Notre-Dame cathedral are approaching 900 million euros after just two days, a reflection of the landmark’s resonance in the national psyche.

But the outpouring has prompted questions from charities, politicians and commentators about why some of the business donors have offered so much so quickly, including speculation about how they might benefit from tax breaks on the donations.

Forget fixing such as historically and culturally significant building as Notre Dame, we can’t let those rich people get their tax breaks.

This is the same attitude that made AOC and other NYC progressives drive off Amazon HQ2.  They just allow the creation of 25,000 new jobs, billions in tax revenue, and putting a major business in what is now an empty lot, if it causes a Billionaire to become just a little more rich.

If a Billionaire cured all cancer everywhere at the cost of paying no income tax ever again, these people would consider it a net loss for the world.  This is a political sickness.

Then again, this attitude stems from the same one that killed 100 Million people in the failed experiment of socialism.

People on social media, both in France and abroad, have expressed frustration that other disasters – from the Syrian and Iraq refugee crisis to the Grenfell Tower fire in London – have not received anything like the same degree of support.

What is Progressivism without oppression Olympics.  Notre Dame can’t be rebuilt after a tragedy like this because other damage done to other people under other circumstances hasn’t been equally fixed.

From The New York Times:

As Rich Lavish Cash on Notre-Dame, Many Ask: What About the Needy?

The pledges came in quick succession.

François-Henri Pinault, France’s second-richest man, put up an eye-popping 100 million euros to rebuild Notre-Dame, just as firefighters were dousing the last flames at the cathedral early Tuesday morning. Not to be outdone, Bernard Arnault, France’s wealthiest scion and a fierce rival to Mr. Pinault and to his father, François Pinault, upped the ante with a 200-million-euro gift a few hours later.

By Wednesday, the government had welcomed some 850 million euros — more than $960 million — offered in the patriotic name of salvaging the cultural treasure, as money from wealthy French families, French companies and international corporations poured in.

But the spectacle of billionaires trying to one-up one another quickly intensified resentments over inequality that have flared during the Yellow Vest movement, just as President Emmanuel Macron was looking to transform the calamity into a new era of national unity. There were accusations that the wildly rich were trying to wash their reputations during a time of national tragedy.

“If they’re able to give dozens of millions to rebuild Notre Dame,” he added, “they should stop telling us that there is no money to pay for social inequalities.”

Ollivier Pourriol, a French philosopher and novelist, summed up the sentiment more drolly.

Nothing like the resentment of the victim class.

The short answer is, what the Yellow Vests want is more of the socialism that has already done so much damage to the French economy.

What upsets the Yellow Vests (which is why the Right seems so attracted to them, even though they are a Leftist group) is money spent on Leftist projects for rich Leftist, like subsidizing solar energy and electric vehicles, and not cradle to grave social welfare policies.

So for the Yellow Vests to see money pour in to do anything but go to them is the zenith of the politics of envy.

From the New York Post:

Yellow vest protesters say Notre Dame donations better spent fighting poverty

Easter mass services have been moved to nearby St. Eustache and St. Sulpice, the latter of which was burned in a separate fire last month.

Some of the gilets jaunes (French for “yellow vests”) carried signs blasting wealthy donors who pledged money to rebuild the church, but have ignored France’s growing homelessness, they said.

“Millions for Notre Dame, what about for us, the poor?” one sign read, according to The Guardian.

“Everything for Notre Dame, nothing for Les Misérables,” another sign said, the paper reported.

The simple answer is “no, the money is not better spent on the poor.”

The issues in France are the same in Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco.  High tax and spend socialist or quasi-socialist, Leftist policies make the cost of living very expensive while driving down the economy.

The generous social welfare programs only subsidize the bad and destructive behavior of the poor and homeless, increasing the problem.

Just as we’ve seen in the US, if that billion was dumped into taking care of the homeless, it would just create more homeless and turn Paris into a bigger shit hole.

That billion is better spend paying people to restore Notre Dame and the surrounding areas.

But this greed, envy, and soak-the-rich class resentment wasn’t the worst thing published.  That dishonor goes to The Times.

Sharp British ideas for Notre Dame

The new spire on Notre Dame could be a “super-slender needle touching heaven’s clouds”, a minaret or a work of art composed entirely of light, according to some of Britain’s leading architects.

Minaret (/ˌmɪnəˈrɛt, ˈmɪnəˌrɛt/;[1] Persian: مأذنة‎ ma’thena, Azerbaijani: minarə, Turkish: minare[2]), from Arabic: منارة‎ manarah,[3] also known as Goldaste (Persian: گلدسته‎), is a type of tower typically found built into or adjacent to mosques.

Those woke motherfuckers in the UK want to build an Islamic spire on top of the Catholic Cathedral of Notre Dame.

I would rather it burn the rest of the way down and crumble into dust than to deface an 800 year old monument to French Catholicism by putting a fucking Minaret on top of it.  I can’t think of a better symbol of French subjugation to Islamic migration than that.

An international competition is to be held to find a replacement for the spire destroyed in the cathedral fire and British designers have been quick to respond with their ideas.

It gets better from there, these Progressives don’t want to rebuild it with historic accuracy.  History is racist and bigoted.

They want to find a intersectional architect to deface it with a glass ceiling, and probably a safe space and juice bar for tourists.  Turing it into a monument of secular Progressiveness.

That will truly ruin it.

The fire damaged the great Cathedral.

It takes the resentment and wokeness of the Progressive Left to hate the idea of people pledging their money to fix it and to propose repairs that disrespect the history of the building.

There is nothing that Progressives touch that isn’t ruined.

Fire damages but Progressives desecrate and destroy.